Something to think about: pic size limit in posts

Snydremark wrote in post #14326967Huh. The images look significantly better, even if just for not being able to see the pixel boundaries, on the new one, for me. I don't see anything that looks like upscaling; small stuff IS *really* small when I pull up any page.

Strange, I have a few friends with 3s and it's all the same story. Perhaps you've got a proper one that works

It's a great thing, don't get me wrong, but you know I actually preferred my 2. I'm sure I'll change my mind when the majority of apps catch up with the retina display.

woos wrote in post #14275601With screen resolutions (finally!) going up again, it might be, imho ^_^, time, to think about upping the pic size limit from 1000px per size. It seems so...limiting...so...l​ast decade!

At work I'm stuck on an awful low rez screen, and anything much over the 1000 limit causes me to have to scroll, and I know others are probably in that same boat, but meh...it's an ancient 17" LCD. I'd gladly put up with a bit of scrolling at work if it meant a better viewing experience elsewhere.

Most extremely low end laptops and screens from the past 5 years and newer are at least 1366 px wide. Most modern desktop LCD screens are 1920x1080 or at least 1600x900 (inexpensive small ones).

Imho, should consider upping the max image rez to 1280 per side, or perhaps 1600 (but 1600 might be annoying for some laptop users). (The reason for 1280 instead of 1366 is to allow for border room in the browser).

Additional food for thought: There are plugins/styles for Chrome and Firefox to allow large images to be auto resized to fit well on pages, as well. (Wordpress is notorious for people complaining about large images!)

Anyway, thanks for the consideration, just a thought. =p

Jon wrote in post #14275748Many people are also using smaller devices, like tablets or even their phones to browse and post here, and paying for every MB that they download. Don't forget that the advancing technology goes both ways.

I would agree with Jon, I am currently using a mobile dongle broadband, and to simply increase it just because of a monitor size going up just simply doesn't make sense at all, even if I was on fibre optic broadband, I would see no point making the site so we can see a 1000px photo, if I see a photo of a reasonable size, that is ok with me

jm4ever wrote in post #14332342Curious about how the odd image I see posted is well above the 1024x1024 limit allowed. I thought the software wouldn't allow this to happen.

The current software can only enforce max size on attached photos (no auto resize but not able to upload if too large). If photo is hosted elsewhere they must make sure the size is max 1024. Bigger photos is not allowed and should be linked.

Jon wrote in post #14275748Many people are also using smaller devices, like tablets or even their phones to browse and post here, and paying for every MB that they download. Don't forget that the advancing technology goes both ways.

The chance they ever cross there limits wont be determined by image sizes on here..it will be their constant streaming use of videos most likely.

J.Litton wrote in post #14332527The chance they ever cross there limits wont be determined by image sizes on here..it will be their constant streaming use of videos most likely.

Correct in a way, but if people keep asking for changes to the size of the image limit, it will scare away those with limited internet....not all those with limited internet are on mobile broadband, there are those with wired internet that have limits to their download

J.Litton wrote in post #14332527The chance they ever cross there limits wont be determined by image sizes on here..it will be their constant streaming use of videos most likely.

It depends on the plan & how often they download photos. But even with the unlimited data, the speed of download varies greatly. I use my phone probably over 50% of times I access POTN and a lot of time the connection is slow, especially from inside of buildings (e.g. my work cafeteria is in the basement 15 ft below the ground, and due to the neanderthal setup of US wireless carrier networks, the repeater signal for our company's wireless provider is interfering with my provider's already weak tower signal, so I am lucky to get 1x speed there).

Perhaps a mobile version of the site ? But that's probably too much work.

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.